The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

10 Dec 2016 2:50:41am

Text

PreviousMessage

What is occurring here is a one sided argument coming from an assumption that atheism is some sort of alternative to religion, when it is simply lack of faith in a god or gods.

There are plenty of people that have have no faith existing now, without consideration of a god. There is only a minor percentage even amongst believers that are actively involved in a church. I'd much rather see the 30+ billion dollars in tax exemptions given to religion for 'promoting the faith' given to secular charity definitively, rather than the unaccountable mass of exemptions given outside the charity arms setup by the religious.

The whole article comes from the perspective of Begging the Question with it's assumption that there is any real difference between those that are good with a god, or without. At just assumes it. It assumes that atheism is some sort of 'organisation' that is comparable to faith, when it is simply people without faith and there are PLENTY of us already, and on top of that, plenty with faith living without any real interest in it either.

The debates over religion are over it's influence on the lives of those without it, of it having rights above and beyond others. If religion was not so intrusive on others, without rights above and beyond others, there wouldn't be such a dire need to discuss that. To confront the beliefs that just assume they should have these rights outside others in our community.